civilservant

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh come on civilservant, what are you a leaver or remainer? didn't realise i had to spell it out, given that i was clearly agreeing with Joeleg about the ridiculously slender margin - as the woman on question time pointed out, you wouldn't change the rules of a golf club on that type of knife-edge vote. fwitw i voted remain and would do so again if ever a second vote came to pass i am not into self-harm, nor do i get a kick out of harming the future prospects of the people i share this country with

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really? Why? > > It was a pretty close vote, and there were some pretty dodgy claims made by the Leave campaign. > I?d say ?skin of their teeth? is fairly close to the truth. YMMV, as the yoof say... yes, pretty close to the truth - closer than most of the Leave campaign's claims, even

i remember being quite anxious about taking our first dog out, but it all becomes more straightforward with every day that passes Goose green is good, but do watch the railings and also the gates - make sure that they are properly shut the rye is good too, but there are a few wooded or overgrown areas where you'll need to keep an eye on your pup i would advise against an extendable lead - it frustrates the pup when other off-lead dogs are around, and some dogs can bully other dogs who are on-lead. it also gets in the way of learning recall. anyway, as you point out, your dog will stay closer off-lead than on, so an extendable lead is counter-productive in all sorts of ways as for vaccinations - they are a good thing! there has been some forum chatter about the lepto vaccine, but given the amount of open water we have around ED, the balance of risk tilts towards vaccinating (and i have often wondered whether EDF anti-vaxxers would advise against the rabies vaccine as well)

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > to report what was going on but > was met with complacency by the co-op workers. what 'was' going on? a man was putting things into a container which wasn't a shopping basket that's all did he then walk out without paying? if the shop staff weren't bothered, is there an issue? what a self-righteous attention-seeking to-do from the OP

yes, they seem to be excellent - our dog has been registered there since puppyhood we switched after our previous dog died while in the care of Norwood Road vets

wow, what a lot of umbrage taken and given! I wasn't aware of this competition until i saw the photos in the latest Dulwich Diverter and thought i'd check the forum (for the first time in ages) for some background i really liked the pictures, especially the portrait of our local street cleaner and the ones of the ducks and the jumping fox cub. Most of the locations are recognisably ED, and i'm looking forward to seeing the street banners in due course Looking at your website, looks like you've got some good stuff planned BUT - who are you, EDAG? i'm very curious about who the "volunteers comprising of (sic) East Dulwich businesses, market traders and residents" are - there's no info on your website!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > would be to provide payment per patient on a > weighted basis, based on the statistical > likelihood of them requiring care on the basis of > age, socioeconomic status, gender etc. this is actually how GP funding is currently allocated - on the basis of practice demographics

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What on Earth is wrong with both of you (and > civilservant) We?ve had all the crowing and PR > hype, what great turn outs, evidence of a > groundswell that the British people have changed > their minds etc. > > Unfortunately, as embarrassing as you may find > this, the pictures of those who participated in > the marches do not reflect the multicultural > nature of Britain. Fact. Not my fault. There may > be many pictures that I haven?t seen that are more > balanced but I haven?t seen them in the papers, on > TV or on Google images. > > Why is it racist to question the seemingly > unrepresentative nature of the public record of > the marches? > > Rhetorical question - I don?t expect any sensible > answers oooh keano, the poor darkies need you to speak up for them, is that it? take it from me, mate, sometimes they're actually able to make up their minds for themselves, believe it or not you have the temerity, the absolute arsiness, to ask what the matter is with me, do you? if you play the race card, then come on, at least have the guts to play it through to the end, don't try and duck out, like a lily-livered nincompoop, you prat!

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think Spider 69 was saying the opposite? > yes, cella, quite right, the tyre guy is doomed as he belongs to an earlier stage of the evolution of ED was what i said a pity that spider edited his post after seeing mine responding to his original formulation of the tyre guy's problem

keano77, are you saying 'Remain' is a 'white' thing? quite wrong, and why do YOU feel entitled to play the race card? the point is that a second vote allows for a better formulation of the question or questions , and it also gives people a chance to decide on the basis of the emerging info about the real impacts of leaving the first vote was tainted by political side-taking, scaremongering and lies (by both sides, though one more than the other) of course it could go either way, but at least it would (one hopes) be a more rational and informed decision than the last one, and hence in the whole country's interests, black or white, north or south, rich or poor what's wrong with all that? i genuinely want to know

you are quite right, spider 69, the condition his condition is in is quite grave his tyre dump represents (and has always been) a grave health and safety risk, not to mention a serious environmental hazard, and may well need to relocate once the population density of the area increases following redevelopment I'd also suspect that the days of the building-materials warehouse and other little business parks around may also be numbered

absolute sense - worrying about not being your usual self doesn't make you a hypochondriac glad you're moving back to firing on all cylinders!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How many in 'that' 700,000 were voters in the > referendum? > So you think it's ok to waste hours of police time marching AGAINST democracy > How many Remain voters changed to Leave after they witnessed the arrogant and puerile behaviour of Barmier et al? you mean 'BarNier' don't you? either a lack of language ability or Sun-style puerile name-calling, neither is a good look, UG regarding waste of police time, i have never seen a more peaceful and good-natured march, and i've been on a few since 2003, alas! police were only needed (and visible) to separate the marchers from ugly little knots of Leavers e.g. outside the Red Lion on whitehall where EDL-ers typically offer up provocation as for Remain moving to Leave, all the evidence points to net flows going the other way but i know from previous discussions that you never let the evidence stand in the way of a good argument - that's typical of leavers, but when even an expensively-educated man like Boris Johnson does it, what hope for the rest of us? but you KNOW it's true - so that's why people like you and Nigel Farage (another expensively-educated rascal who's greatly benefited personally from the EU 'gravy-train') worry about a second vote - some actual facts about the impact of leaving might decisively swing it the other way but we might never know, might we...

estimated 0.7 million marchers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45925542 not all Londoners - Euston station concourse was rammed with home-going Remainers when i passed through there at 5pm

hopeful that the antibiotics and advice help - fingers crossed!

i note that Lyttle Minx and Tart now stand side-by-side in sisterly solidarity

V S Naipaul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._S._Naipaul

to OP and all who are missing our temporary residents now that the caravans have moved on, check this out http://www.musik-heute.de/wp-content/uploads/musik_heute_de/2018/08/Carmen-Domstufen-Festspiele-Erfurt.jpg not the local traveller camp - that's the local cathedral steps, set up to stage Bizet's Carmen in Germany some stories just never run out of steam!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The primary issue when travelers occupy private land is to remove them (as it would be for illegal > squatting). Any consequential prosecutions for e.g. fly tipping require full identification of > the fly tippers (who won't be the entire group) - otherwise the prosecution would fail. I think Angelina is right to be puzzled, Penguin, the issue is not about having grounds for prosecution but about moving a bunch of squatters along where they are creating a public nuisance the Council and police were quick to act when a band of Euro-crusties set up an illegal squat in the old police station on Crystal Palace Road a couple of years back, and again when a group squatted next to the Constitutional Club. those squatters didn't fly-tip all over the site, so were much less of a nuisance so why isn't there any action here, where there is an actual health and safety hazard? no wonder people are invoking conspiracy theories, and allowing some of the nastier Forum racists to have a field day

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that were the case there would be repurcussions for what has happened, but that doesn't appear to > be happening. So, the two do seem to be interwoven why interwoven? the council should be sorting it out - has anyone affected complained to them? and if the land is Dulwich Estates land, as reported in an earlier post, they should be acting as well, so they clearly don't see a problem with it, possibly even an opportunity

also, this is not the time of year to be starting bonfires (or barbecues for that matter) everywhere is tinder-dry event after the rain

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes Sue, they are a minority and therefore are privileged with tolerances because we're so scared > of being labelled as racist/ intolerant you are confusing two completely different things travellers and gypsies belong to protected groups - this means that they are protected against harassment (which includes name-calling) for being members of that group they've been given these protections because people have historically harassed them even when they've been minding their own business BUT they do not have privileges under the law - if they break the law, they face the same sanctions as anyone else who breaks that law. (poor old Penguin has tried to explain this already) this lot have dumped stuff and made a mess of somewhere - THAT is the problem, not the fact that they are travellers, or, as one of the more charming posters above put it, 'do as you likeys'

i've attended Kings' Ophthalmology department for a few years now for a long-term condition and that happens all the time to me. if your condition is chronic and there is no emergency, they do tend to move appointments - i'm often told to ask for an appointment in 6 months' time, and then get a letter to say my appointment has been pushed back another 6 months, but i get seen once a year as a minimum, so i assume that there is some kind of review process going on and when i do get seen, i have to budget for a whole morning or afternoon off in the company of large numbers of very old people who are also being treated - very useful corrective to see how many people are worse off and in greater need of the service than oneself if you have an emergency, then of course you can get a referral from your gp or be seen via A&E